Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Abair emigrated from Russia in 2005 and married an American citizen. Abair owned an apartment in Moscow. After her divorce, Abair sold the apartment and deposited the proceeds with Citibank Moscow. She signed a contract to buy an Indiana home for cash. Citibank refused to transfer funds because her local account was in her married name and the Moscow account used her birth name. Over two weeks Abair withdrew the daily maximum ($6400) from Citibank ATMs and deposited $6400 to $9800 at her local bank. A deposit on Tuesday, May 31 followed the Memorial Day weekend and was posted with one made on Saturday, pushing her “daily” deposit over the $10,000 trigger for reporting, 31 U.S.C. 5313(a). Abair was charged with structuring financial transactions to evade reporting. IRS agents testified that during her unrecorded interview, Abair, who is not fluent in English, revealed knowledge of the reporting rules. Abair testified that she was aware of the limit when she spoke with the agents, but had learned about it after making the deposits, when she asked why identification was required. She said her deposit amounts were based on how much cash would fit in her purse. Abair was convicted and agreed to forfeit the entire proceeds. The Seventh Circuit remanded, finding that the government lacked a good faith basis for believing that Abair lied on tax and financial aid forms and that the court erred (Rule 608(b)) by allowing the prosecutor to ask accusatory, prejudicial questions about them. On the record, Abair is at most a first offender, according to the court, which expressed “serious doubts” that forfeiture of $67,000 comports with the “principle of proportionality” under the Excessive Fines Clause.View "United States v. Abair" on Justia Law

Doolittle was a registered securities broker/dealer, and a registered investment advisor. He or his corporations held licenses, permits, or certificates to engage in real estate and insurance brokerage and tax preparation. Around 1990 his primary business became “trust deeds investments,” in which he “would arrange groups of investors together to buy those loans or to fund those transactions for different types of individuals and institutional borrowers.” After investors lost money, Doolittle was convicted and sentenced to 13 years in prison for three counts of theft by false pretenses; six counts of theft from an elder or dependent adult; nine counts of false statements or omissions in the sale of securities; selling unregistered securities; and sale of a security by willful and fraudulent use of a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud The appeals court reversed in part, holding that Doolittle’s challenge that the trial court’s implied finding of timely prosecution was not supported by substantial evidence required remand with respect to two of the charges. A further hearing may be necessary with respect to applicability of a sentence enhancement for aggregate losses over $500,000. Doolittle’s conviction for sale of unregistered securities and sale of securities by means of a fraudulent device did not rest on the same conduct as his convictions for fraud against specific victims; his sentence on the former counts therefore does not offend the proscription against duplicative punishment. View "People v. Doolittle" on Justia Law

In 2009 Betty and Wayne submitted a tax return on behalf of a Betty Phillips Trust, signed by Betty, who was listed as the trustee, claiming income of $47,997. A second return on behalf of a Wayne Phillips trust, was signed by Wayne, but Betty was listed as trustee. This return reported income of $1,057,585. Both returns claimed that all income had gone to pay fiduciary fees, so that the trusts had no taxable income. The Wayne Trust claimed a refund of $352,528. The Betty Trust claimed $15,999. The IRS issued a check for $352,528. They endorsed the check and deposited it into a joint account. The returns were fraudulent. The IRS had no record of any taxes being paid by the trusts. In December, the IRS served summonses. That month, the couple withdrew $244,137 remaining from their refund proceeds using 13 different locations. They followed the same strategy the next year, but did not receive checks. A jury convicted Betty of conspiracy to defraud the government with respect to claims (18 U.S.C. 286), and of knowingly making a false claim to the government (18 U.S.C. 287.1). The district court sentenced her to 41 months’ imprisonment and ordered them to pay $352,528 in restitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that the court improperly admitted evidence, and that the government constructively amended the indictment and violated Betty’s right against self‐incrimination.View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Durham, Cochran, and Snow took control of Fair Finance Company, a previously well-established and respected business, and used money invested in Fair to support their lavish lifestyles and to fund loans to related parties that would never be repaid. When auditors raised red flags, the auditors were fired. When Fair experienced cash-flow problems, it misled investors and regulators so it could keep raising capital. One of the company’s directors, under investigation in a separate matter, alerted the FBI that Fair was being operated as a Ponzi scheme. The FBI seized Fair’s computer servers and, after an investigation uncovered more than $200 million in losses to thousands of victims, many of them elderly or living on modest incomes, arrested the three. A jury convicted them of conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, except with respect to Durham’s wire fraud convictions. The government failed to enter into the trial record key documentary evidence supporting those counts. The court rejected arguments relating to sufficiency of the evidence; sufficiency of the wiretap application; the court’s refusal to give a proposed theory-of-defense jury instruction on the securities fraud count; alleged prosecutorial misconduct during the rebuttal closing argument; and claimed sentencing errors. View "United States v. Durham" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to wire fraud and making a false statement on a loan application. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's imposition of a 16-level increase to defendant's base offense level based on that court's calculation that the banks suffered a loss of over a million dollars. The court held that, in a mortgage fraud case, loss under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b) is calculated in two steps. First, calculating actual or intended loss allowed for a reasonable foreseeability analysis although the actual loss generally consisted of the entire principal of the fraudulently obtained loan. Second, crediting against the actual or intended loss the value of any collateral recovered or recoverable, did not permit a foreseeability analysis. Rather, the value of the collateral was credited against the amount of the loss calculated at the first step, whether or not the value of the collateral was foreseeable. The court affirmed the sentence because the district court followed this rule in calculating the loss attributable to defendant as $1,033,500.View "United States v. Morris" on Justia Law

Salahuddin was Newark’s Deputy Mayor for Public Safety. He allegedly conspired to use his official position to obtain charitable and political contributions and to direct Newark demolition contracts to Cooper, with whom Salahuddin was allegedly in business. Both were convicted of conspiring to extort under color of official right, under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a). The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting Salahuddin’s claims that the government failed to prove that one of the alleged co-conspirators committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; that the district court erred in omitting an overt act requirement from its jury instructions; and that the rule of lenity requires that his conviction be vacated. The court rejected Cooper’s claim that the jury’s guilty verdict as to the Hobbs Act conspiracy charge was against the weight of the evidence. View "United States v. Salahuddin" on Justia Law

A grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging Safiyyah Tahir Battles with: (1) making a false statement to a financial institution (Count I); (2) committing wire fraud (Count II); and (3) laundering money (Count III). Battles exercised her right to a jury trial, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty on Counts II and III. The jury failed to reach a verdict on Count I. As a result, the district court declared a mistrial on Count I and subsequently granted the government's unopposed motion to dismiss that count without prejudice. Battles was sentenced to thirty months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release. The district court also ordered her to make restitution to the victim of her crimes. Battles appealed her convictions and sentence on numerous grounds. Upon careful consideration of the facts of this case and the district court record, the Tenth Circuit upheld the district court's judgment and affirmed Battles's convictions and sentence. The Court dismissed the portion of Battles's appeal pertaining to her Brady claim for lack of jurisdiction.View "United States v. Battles" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted defendants Michael Calhoun, Tommy Davis, and William Tucker on 60 counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. The indictment was based on Calhoun's grand jury testimony in which he incriminated himself, Davis, and Tucker. Calhoun testified upon the advice of his counsel at the time, Tom Mills, who was paid by Texas Capital Bank (the alleged victim of the fraud). After Calhoun secured new counsel, defendants moved to quash the indictment and suppress Calhoun's grand jury testimony, arguing the indictment was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment Indictment Clause, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and Calhoun's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion. In consolidated, pretrial interlocutory appeals, the defendants challenged the denial of their motion to quash, arguing that the Tenth Circuit should exercise its jurisdiction under the "collateral order" exception to the final judgment rule, ("Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.," (337 U.S. 541, 546-47 (1949)). However, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the collateral order doctrine did not apply, and dismissed these appeals for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Tucker" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Thomas Evans was a property manager and organizer of real estate investment funds, and was owner and president of Evans Real Estate Group, LLC. V R. 212. At first, Evans' business conduct was legitimate (if highly risky), but by April 2005, Evans experienced cash flow problems and was unable to make the high interest payments to investors. He pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and was sentenced to 168 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. He appealed the sentence. Because the district court erred in calculating loss and failing to award an offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to vacate the sentence and resentence. View "United States v. Evans" on Justia Law

Brothers Daniel and John owned four companies that offered remodeling services to homeowners. They provided honest work on construction jobs for cash customers, but duped numerous people into refinancing their homes and paying the loan proceeds directly to their companies, then left the jobs unfinished. They targeted neighborhoods on the South and West sides of Chicago, using telemarketers who looked for “elderly, ignorant homeowners,” and had customers sign blank contracts. They referred homeowners to specific loan officers and required the homeowners to sign letters of direction, so the title companies sent checks directly to the companies. From 2002 to 2006, the brothers collected about $1.2 million from more than 40 homeowner-victims. They were convicted of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343. The district court found that the loss calculation was more than $400,000 but less than $1,000,000 and accordingly increased the offense level, then applied enhancements because the conduct involved: vulnerable victims; violation of a prior court order; sophisticated means; mass-marketing; and leadership or organization of the scheme. The district court sentenced each brother to 168 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court reasonably estimated the amount of loss and properly enhanced the offense level further for the other five aggravating factors View "United States v. Sullivan" on Justia Law